Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens in patients with cancer: A randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial
Schwartzberg L.S.,The West Clinic |
Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology |
Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital |
And 5 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Methods: We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. Findings: Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: Two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials
Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital |
Urban L.,Matrahaza Healthcare Center and University Teaching Hospital |
Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology |
And 6 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. Findings: Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): A randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study
Bradley J.D.,Washington University in St. Louis |
Paulus R.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center |
Komaki R.,University of Houston |
Masters G.,Christiana Care Helen Graham Medical Center |
And 18 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0-1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m2 paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m2 cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2, and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. Findings: Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22·9 months (IQR 27·5-33·3). Median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·1-36·9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20·3 months (17·7-25·0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1·38, 95% CI 1·09-1·76; p=0·004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21·3 months (IQR 23·5-29·8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25·0 months (95% CI 20·2-30·5) compared with 24·0 months (19·8-28·6) in those who did not (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·84-1·35; p=0·29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0·0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0·0001). Interpretation: 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. Funding: National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Lee T.K.,British Columbia Cancer Agency |
Breau R.H.,The Ottawa Hospital |
Eapen L.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
Journal of Sexual Medicine | Year: 2013
Introduction: There is limited data on post-treatment quality of life (QoL) for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) with prostate cancer (PCa). QoL in MSM may not be reflected by assessment tools designed for the heterosexual population. Aims: Our goals were to evaluate post-treatment QoL in PCa patients who are MSM, and to investigate the utility of current QoL assessment tool. Methods: PCa patients treated with surgery and/or radiation were recruited from the local MSM community. Each participant completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), and a questionnaire focused on insertive and receptive roles of anal intercourse. Main Outcome Measures: Response scores were calculated based on questionnaire design and compared by treatment modality. Results: Seven participants treated with surgery (mean age 58) and eight participants treated with radiation (mean age 67) were recruited. No participant in the surgical group received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) while two in radiation group were treated with ADT. The sample size of this study did not permit formal statistical analysis, although potential differences in Urinary and Bowel Domains from EPIC and Ejaculation Scale from MSHQ were observed. More participants from the radiation group seemed to be able to maintain both insertive and receptive anal intercourse roles after treatment compared to participants who received surgery. Conclusions: While the two validated assessment tools suggested similar QoL scores including sexual function for both surgical and radiation groups, post-treatment sexual function related to anal intercourse may be better in the radiation group, as compared to the surgical group. Larger studies in PCa patients from MSM community are warranted to verify these data. 2013 International Society for Sexual Medicine.
Gresham G.K.,University of Ottawa |
Wells G.A.,University of Ottawa |
Gill S.,British Columbia Cancer Agency |
Cameron C.,University of Ottawa |
Jonker D.J.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
BMC Cancer | Year: 2014
Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.Results: The search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.Conclusions: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required. © 2014 Gresham et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Bar J.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
Moskovits N.,Weizmann Institute of Science |
Oren M.,Weizmann Institute of Science
Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology | Year: 2010
p53 is a major tumor-suppressor gene, inactivated by mutations in about half of all human cancer cases, and probably incapacitated by other means in most other cases. Most research regarding the role of p53 in cancer has focused on its ability to elicit apoptosis or growth arrest of cells that are prone to become malignant owing to DNA damage or oncogene activation, i.e. cell-autonomous activities of p53. However, p53 activation within a cell can also exert a variety of effects upon neighboring cells, through secreted factors and paracrine and endocrine mechanisms. Of note, p53 within cancer stromal cells can inhibit tumor growth and malignant progression. Cancer cells that evolve under this inhibitory influence acquire mechanisms to silence stromal p53, either by direct inhibition of p53 within stromal cells, or through pressure for selection of stromal cells with compromised p53 function. Hence, activation of stromal p53 by chemotherapy or radiotherapy might be part of the mechanisms by which these treatments cause cancer regression. However, in certain circumstances, activation of stromal p53 by cytotoxic anti-cancer agents might actually promote treatment resistance, probably through stromal p53-mediated growth arrest of the cancer cells or through protection of the tumor vasculature. Better understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms is thus required. Hopefully, this will allow their manipulation towards better inhibition of cancer initiation, progression and metastasis. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Hsu T.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
Journal of Geriatric Oncology | Year: 2016
The population is aging accounting for a large increase in anticipated cancer cases. Specialty training for trainees interested in geriatric oncology have been established in many countries and is growing globally. However, the number of clinicians with a particular interest in geriatric oncology and who complete training in both specialties is low. There are insufficient geriatric oncologists and geriatricians to address the unique needs of this population of patients. The majority of older adults with cancer are, and will continue to be, treated by oncologists. Currently clinicians caring for patients with cancer receive little to no formal training in caring for older adults, resulting in gaps in knowledge as well as a lack of confidence when treating older adults with cancers. Key strategies to accelerate the uptake and impact of educational initiatives to address this gap include the use of effective educational strategies, broad dissemination of educational material that is freely available, and the integration of geriatric oncology topics into teaching, curriculum, assessments and exams. © 2016 Elsevier Inc.
Asmis T.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
Current Oncology | Year: 2010
Hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) is an uncommon tumour, but its incidence is increasing in Canada and elsewhere. Currently, there are no Canadian recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of hcc, and possible options may have regional limitations. A consensus symposium was held in the Ottawa region to consider current diagnostic and management options for hcc. These recommendations were developed: • Diagnosis-with adequate imaging, a biopsy is not required pre-surgery, but is required before the start of systemic therapy; lesions smaller than 1 cm should be followed and not biopsied; repeat biopsies should be core tissue biopsies; magnetic resonance imaging is preferred, but triphasic computed tomography imaging can be useful • Resection-recommended for localized hcc • Radiofrequency ablation-recommended for unresectable or non-transplantable hcc; should not be performed in the presence of ascites • Transarterial chemoembolization (tace)- doxorubicin with lipiodol is the agent of choice; trans-catheter embolization is an alternative for patients if tace is not tolerated or is contraindicated • Medical management-first-line sorafenib should be considered the standard of care • Transplantation-suitable patients meeting Milan criteria should be assessed for a graft regardless of other treatments offered The authors feel that the recommendations from this consensus symposium may be of interest to other regions in Canada. © 2010 Multimed Inc.
Croke J.M.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
El-Sayed S.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
Current Oncology | Year: 2012
Purpose: Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (mccs) are designed to optimize patient outcomes. It appears intuitive that mccs are essential to clinical decision-making and patient management; however, it is unclear whether that belief is supported by evidence. Our objectives were to assess the currently published literature addressing the impact of mccs on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. Methods: Ovid medline was searched from 1950 to June 2010 using these keywords: "multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary/ clinical meeting$/conference$/round$/ team$," "decision making," "neoplasms$/cancer$/ oncology/tumo(u)r conference$/board$/meeting$," "multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary cancer conference$/ meeting$." All trials, guidelines, metaanalyses, reviews, and prospective and retrospective studies were included. Results: The keywords retrieved 595 abstracts, and 30 manuscripts were obtained. Most of the studies assessed the impact of mccs on clinical decision-making rather than on patient outcomes. Conclusions: Available evidence supports the belief that mccs significantly influence clinical decision-making and treatment recommendations. In contrast, scant evidence suggests that mccs improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, the current literature is substantially heterogeneous and therefore does not allow for firm conclusions. © 2012 Multimed Inc.
Tsvetkova E.V.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center |
Asmis T.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
Current Oncology | Year: 2014
Pancreatic cancer is the 4th leading cause of cancer related death. Complete surgical resection (CR0) is considered the only curative treatment. Most patients present with unresectable or borderline resectable disease. Many small phase i/ii trials have tried to address the role of neoadjuvant treatment using chemotherapy with or without chemoradiation in the management of locally advanced disease. However, many of them looked at the rate of CR0 resection and the feasibility of such treatment. A trend for improved overall survival has been observed in the group of patients with borderline resectable disease who completed neoadjuvant treatment. A large proportion of patients progress while on treatment, sparing them from unnecessary surgery. We searched the PubMed database (using the key words "pancreatic cancer," or "pancreatic neoplasm," or "pancreatic adenocarcinoma," and "neoadjuvant treatment," or "neoadjuvant chemotherapy," or "neoadjuvant radiation therapy," or "neoadjuvant chemoradiation," or "adjuvant therapy" [all fields] and "clinical trial" or "study") and abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings on gastrointestinal cancers. Here, we review the most recent papers that present results on neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer. All but one report used overall survival as an endpoint. Unfortunately, there are no valid biomarkers predicting tumour progression or recurrence, and response to treatment than can help to guide therapeutic choices. Our recommendation is to consider neoadjuvant treatment in cases of borderline resectable disease. In patients with primary resectable tumours, surgery followed by adjuvant treatment and enrollment on adjuvant treatment studies would be appropriate. © 2014 Multimed Inc.